-The NYT Style blog has a post up on "The Naked Face," complete with an embedded video in which a makeup artist gives a model her version of the pseudo-natural, no-makeup makeup, look. Controversy ensues. On the one hand, that a bare-faced look should require $16 toner, $40 day cream, $32 primer, $19 lip balm, and a whole lot of makeup is some mix of pathetic and hilarious. On the other, let she who does not require concealer cast the first what's-the-point-of-foundation stone. (Is too much primping always one product more than we ourselves deem necessary?)

-It's great that the Guardian is taking an interest in the beauty concerns of non-white women. What I fail to see is how there can be an item on hair-care products "for dark skin," especially in a British context, a column promising "the latest beauty trends for black and Asian skin." Hair texture and skin color, not the same! Non-white isn't a monolith, particularly where all-important issues like which conditioner to use are concerned. I'm thinking women of Pakistani and Nigerian origin might have different hair-care requirements. There's a bit more specificity in the article than the headline, although it isn't clear why these various hair textures must be assembled in one column. And, on a personal note, I suppose I'm amused on account of being of an ancestry that makes me paler than pale, yet provides me with definitively 'ethnic' hair.

-Peep-toe booties. Why? Is this about there being something inherently attractive about looking uncomfortable? Or do these footwear items have something else going for them?